Islamophobia – The Real Need for Electoral Reform in Canada

JC CollinsCultural, FREEPOM, Geopolitical20 Comments

The Difference between a Republic and a Democracy

By JC Collins

Proportional representation is the cornerstone of all Republics and ensures that the powers of sovereignty are vested in, and exercised by, the people through that very same proportional representation.  This differs from the majority representation in a Democracy where a 49% (or less) minority of the population only have rights that are granted to them by the ruling false-majority.

Outside of this fundamental difference a Republic and a Democracy are the same.  Simply put, a Republic ensures the sovereign representation of all individual electoral voters while in a Democracy sovereignty is held in the group or elected false-majority which can at times amount to 30% of the electoral voters.

The ongoing debate here in Canada about eliminating the First Past the Post (FPTP) electoral voting system and implementing a more balanced and fair proportional representation system is a direct extension of the growing need to move from the Monarchy system of governance to a Republican system of governance.

The origins of Canadian Republicanism preceded Canadian Confederation during the rebellions of 1837.  The new nation eventually embedded the British Parliamentary form of governance into its constitution and the ideals of a Canadian Republic went to the wayside.  But the world is fundamentally a different place now as we march forth further into the 21st Century and the Monarchy form of governance with its disproportionate voting system is in dire need of change.

The growing demand for electoral reform and proportional representation is one of the first steps which can be taken to transition the nation towards this Republican style governance framework.  The sovereignty of the individual and the sovereignty of the state are directly connected and one cannot exist without the other.  The Parliamentary Monarchy which Canada currently operates under provides neither individual sovereignty nor national sovereignty.

As an example let’s discuss one of the hot topics which is taking place on the Canadian political landscape.  The M103 Islamophobia legislation is being debated and will eventually be voted on.  The motion is attempting to make Islamophobia a crime but fails to clearly define the term Islamophobia.

Keep in mind that Canada already has laws which protect the rights of the individuals and minority groups in so far as they align with the mandates of the false-majority.  But this isn’t stopping the Liberal government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, along with select Conservative-leftists and others who succumb to the pressure of political correctness, from pushing the motion and reducing free speech and criticism of its governance policies.

But does the pending M103 legislation actually reflect the will of the people and represent the vast majority in the nation?  Sadly it does not.

The Liberal government of Trudeau, and its policies, serves as the perfect example of disproportionate representation and why change is required.  Canada has 338 electoral parliamentary seats from which the Liberals won 184 seats.  This is 54.4% of all possible seats.  Sounds reasonable on the surface but when you take a closer look you realize that the Liberals only received 39.5% of the popular vote.  That would suggest that 60.5% of Canadians, or greater, could potentially disagree with the policies of this government.

In a recent University of Toronto and McGill Institute study it was revealed that 65% of Canadians feel that immigrants should take on more Canadian values.  This can be interpreted as a fairly accurate representation of those who would speak out against the imported Islamic values which have been taking place.  This is the same demographic which M103 would affect the most as electoral voters become afraid to speak out and eventually become disenfranchised and no longer represented.

A poll conducted last year in Ontario provides further confirmation of this disproportionate representation.  A whopping 75% of those polled held the opinion that Islamic immigrants hold fundamentally different values than Canadians and that Islamic mainstream doctrines promote violence.

Another 53% said Canada should only accept immigrants from nations and regions which share similar values as Canada, with 75% wanting stricter regulations around who is allowed into the country.

It is very clear that the majority of Canadians think that the Islamic culture is not compatible with Canadian culture and want less Islamic immigration.  Does this constitute Islamophobia if it is a representation of the majority of Canadians?  Am I in breach of M103 legislation because I present these facts to Canadians?  Should 75% of Canadians remain disenfranchised and not represented because our views and opinions are not the same as a 25% minority who happen to control the halls of power in our Monarch Parliamentary system of governance?

Hint – A 75% demographic of Canadians with a shared opinion does not make that opinion a “phobia”, it makes it a very real concern for electoral voters who need to demand proportionate representation through electoral reform and changes to our system of governance.

Recently I watched one Canadian journalist make a comment on the national news that the fear of Sharia Law spreading in Canada because of our immigration policies was “looney”.  This so-called journalist who should be impartial and present the truth to Canadians called 75% of Ontarians, and to a larger extent Canadians, “looney” for holding a specific opinion which is at odds with those of the minority representation in Ottawa.

There have been previous nations around the world who made successful transitions from a Monarchy form of Parliamentary governance to a Republic form of Parliamentary governance.  These nations span the cultural spectrum but all share the ideals of Republicanism and proportionate representation.

The place to begin here in Canada is to first recognize the need for a Republican form of government and spread the message that electoral reform and proportionate representation are in fact the same issue as individual and national sovereignty, both of which are embedded features of Republic mandates and cannot be provided by a Monarch Parliamentary system of governance.

The mandate of the Republican Party of Canada is to spread this awareness and begin the process of renewing and returning both individual sovereignty and national sovereignty to Canada and its people.  The one law, one people, and one nation ideals of the RPC are meant to promote our culture, in all its varying forms, by ending cultural segregation and ensuring the balanced application of the laws for all people.  As the majority of unrepresented Canadians show, increased Islamic immigration will only cause further cultural segregation and lead to the widespread social challenges which are now spreading through Europe.

Please visit www.therpc.ca or www.therpc.quebec and join to help renew Canada’s political and economic sovereignty.

JC Collins can be contacted at jcollins@philosophyofmetrics.com

This article is copyrighted by POM Media©2017. As non-Premium content it can be shared and reposted without further permission.

Please subscribe for Premium Content.

20 Comments on “Islamophobia – The Real Need for Electoral Reform in Canada”

  1. “But does the pending M103 legislation actually reflect the will of the people and represent the vast majority in the nation? Sadly it does not.”

    This seems to be the underlying current in the existing parliament. Remember when Trudeau’s first response to that attack on a mosque in Quebec where he in so many words called the Canadian majority terrorists by referring that the two Canadians performed an act of terrorism instead of calling it a hate crime. It’s like reverse racism or prejudice against the very people he is supposed to represent. He described it as a “terrorist attack on Muslims” then went on later in his official report where he cleared it up a bit.

    I guess the first response was his private position and after having time to put a “politically correct” report together he presented his public view of the incident.

    Some similarities to Hillary Clinton can be pointed out. The most obvious is a belief that a public AND private perspective on issues for the populous which he is supposed to publicly represent not privately.

    Second, his silent reference of Canadians being terrorists is a sort of cognitive dissonance that is geared at pulling on the emotions of the masses so they don’t see the truth of the matter. One commonality between Clinton and Trudeau is they both seem to be really chummy with George Soros.

    Why is the world sacrificing the western laws that so many souls have paid the price to instill and protect for one infrastructure loan or another? Why is the world allowing Sharia Law to buy its way into our lives? I guess we “the masses” don’t care about anything but how high our lift kits take us into the sky. Most likely blasting “comfortably numb” by Pink Floyd through the sound system bragging how clean we are while our tires are buried in the mud. We need to sort out our priorities.

    Here is the link for his early response about terrorism.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/world/americas/quebec-city-mosque-shooting-canada.html?_r=0

    And here is his official report.

    http://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2017/01/29/statement-prime-minister-canada-fatal-shooting-city-quebec

    Okay I might have a biased perspective on this, but one thing that cannot be denied from these two articles is the show of favoritism towards Islamic Canadians by the sitting parliament. Why is this?

    1. Thank you Dane and well said. All the questions you raised are absolutely valid and just questions to ask, that is why ISlam has all of a sudden become a protected and favored beleif system of the entire western world!

      The mention of Soros in your post is possibly the single source and cause of all the problems in this regard, if not an important element of it.

      This Islamism did not exist in the 1970’s as we have discussed in many occasions at POM. Instead we had “Marxism” in Europe as well as in West Asia aka Middle-East region. In Europe we had the Red Brigade, Baader-Meinhof Group, also known as Red Army Faction in West Germany of the era before the unification. Throughout the Middle East, all the way from Egypt, to the entire Arabian peninsula there were not a single group that could be regarded as “Islamist” whatsoever.

      In Yemen, which was partitioned at the time, there was a South Yemen Democratic Republic, a Moscow backed Marxist entity which was installed by the Soviet Union and in support of the Arabian peninsula’s Marxists. The Soviets had installed powerful Shortwave radio stations that would broadcast in all Arabic dialects to target Iraq, Syria, Jordan (Palestinian groups) as well as, last but not least the Imperial government of Iran to specifically bring down the Shah of Iran, the legitimate and secular monarch of Iran.

      Iranian military fought and quashed a guerrilla army in Oman, successfully after suffering casualties restoring the Oman’s monarch, Sultan Qaboos. The action of the Iranian Imperial army removed the powerbase of the Soviets from the entire peninsula, by a crushing defeat militarily.

      The Baathist (Arab Socialist ideology, defined by Michel Aflaq, a Christian Marxist Lebanese) regimes of Iraq and Syria, were also under constant threat from the same brand of Marxists. Iraqi and Syrian governments were in a constant battle with the Marxists. Imperial Iranian government also endured much damage as the same Marxist groups with an international connections were involved with assassinations, bank robberies, blowing up of cinema’s, police and gendarmerie units, sabotage of bridges and public places etc. etc.

      All the above coincided with a constant barrage of calls by the Western press, Der Spiegel, The Guardian and other French and British newspapers for “Human Rights” in Iran. The collective efforts was to demonize the Shah of Iran as some sort of blood thirsty tyrant.

      Finally in January 1979, the Western elite under the Democratic Presidency of Jimmy Carter, created the atmosphere of absolute terror in Iran when the arrival of the Arch Islamist, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini was facilitated. The arrival of Khomeini was the moment in history of this planet when the dark and sinister cult of Pan-Islamism was brought into power to a secular Iran, where Islam was not it’s native relegion but the plan other more sinister motives, namely, the Islamic expansionism in the West we are experiencing at the moment. Therefore, this picture can provide the real root and sources of where ISlamism we are experiencing come from, and that is directly from Marxism which worked as the precursor or road-flattener for the arrival of Islamism.

      Since 1979, a socially and economically progressive Iran has been transformed to a backward, super corrupt, lawless Islamist paradise with the highest rate of brain-drain, the highest rate of narcotic addiction, prostitution and massive gap between the poor and the rich has been achieved by the glory of Islamism. Iran, under the secular Imperial monarch enjoyed a double digit rate of economic expansion and an unheard of rate of standard of living with a rapidly advancing population in all aspects. None of these was palatable to the western elite of the era as the advancement for any nation was their prerogative and not the native’s decision.

      The purpose to write this preamble which I hope you will forgive me for was to show the source of where Islamism is actually coming from. Since 1979, there is no Marxist insurgency anywhere with the exception of the FARC in Colombia and another small groups in Asia. As for any other major radicalism and insurgency, they are of Islamism tendencies.

      The question to ask is what happened to all these Marxist sympathisers, activists and murderers?! Did they all grow a beard and converted to Islam? These are serious questions as this is a mystery which should be investigated by serious truth seekers.

      The net result of Islamism today is that they are following in the footsteps of the old Marxists it seems in that their sole aim is to take down the existing system and turn it into a one hellhole that Iran has been successfully turned into. This is why the left in US (Democrats) and the EU is so pro Islamism. Islamism is the tool and method of controlling the masses through brutality and fear. Other than that one can not see any rational reasons for the constant support of the western leaders to both ISlamic Republic of Mullahs of Iran and the Saudi Arabian regime of 15,000 Princes whose national assets are spent in promoting this degenerate brand of anti-humanism.

      The warning signs for the Left of the Western politics has been ringing for a long time, and the emergence of Donald Trump, BREXIT and the imminent collapse of the EU that cherished Islamism as its core principles, will be the last call. Marxism has died, and so will Islamism and the unholy alliance of the two cults of Slavery and backwardness.

        1. Hi Dane and thank you, There’s a lot of truth in what this lady is saying. Islam is an offshoot of Judaism and cult that was created by a section of Jews in that part of the world. The signs are all there in the original Mecca which was towards Jerusalem and the references of the Quran all points to a “Mediterranean climate” and not the hot sands and inhospitable Arabian deserts!

          I would prefer to watch the great documentary by the English writer, Tom Holland in 2012. Holland was threatened by the ISlamists in the West as he raised serious questions regarding the historical narratives presented about Islam. In the documentary it transpires that the “guardians” of the faith, intensely dislike any history to be researched or revealed, pointing to a historical deception that if revealed could undermine not only Islam but the other two Abrahamic faiths. ISlam is the extension of the other Abrahamic religions any which way one likes to deny or agree to it, since they all share a similar philosophy in its cosmology and the way they see Man in relation to the Godhead.

          I will comment further if you like regarding this but I think Tom Holland’s great documentary provides a fascinating outlook to the idea of ISlam from a historical perspective. And yet, as you will see in the documentary, there is a hatred of anything historical in relation to Islam, so it should be regarded as a Myth than history! The emphasis is all about “Belief” rather than Logic here it seems.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRQryxti6Ww

          1. Wow, carpe-diem. I’m 3/4’s of the way through this video. This may sound a bit funny but while watching the complexity of the culture or cultures really I kept getting a voice in my head saying…that’s the same thing that happened in the US.

            So many missing books and documents from this line of history. Makes me wonder how long man lived before he could write or make symbols and the like.

            Thank you for an expanded version of this history.

  2. I refer to your excellent post about ‘educated’ people v critical thinkers, when I say that the Brexit referendum created such a shock to the liberal establishment because it crossed party lines. The biggest loser was the British Labour Party which may never recover from the fact that a lot of their core voters voted to Leave the EU even though the referendum was seen as a conservative backed issue. At one time in this country to vote against your party’s line was unheard of.

    All it took to ‘break the dam’ was one issue, the EU, to bring people together regardless of political affiliation. We found a common cause. Maybe this is Canada’s common cause.

  3. One other point. Your reference to a Monarchy Parliamentary system is a bit misleading as there is no such thing, though as a descriptor I guess it sort of fits when used to describe your federal government. Canada seems to have a mix of the British and American systems as you also have state legislatures. Though I suppose you could describe the ‘countries’ of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland that have assemblies as an equivalent of state legislatures.

    We only got a Parliamentary system in England when the Barons rebelled and confronted the Monarch and removed his divine right to rule. The separation of Powers is why our Monarch is a ceremonial head of state with no executive power.

    The UK Parliament holds the Sovereign Power (that used to belong to the Monarch) for and on behalf of the people and the House of Lords for the ‘Barons’ aka the aristocracy but also extended to include some members of the Judiciary and the Church too as they were often one and the same. The former is an elected house, the second is now a hybrid of hereditary and appointed members.

    There are moves afoot to create a more equal representation of the people by way of boundary changes. By that I mean changes to the constituencies represented by the Members of Parliament. It is meant to even up the number of people that makes up each constituency, currently 650! The changes will also reduce the number of MPs, but not significantly.

    We have had a number of demands for proportional representation over the years, but have ended up keeping the FPTP system. Too many snouts don’t want to give up their feeding trough. It has also prevented a new party gaining any sort of foothold. UKIP is a perfect example. Over 4 million votes at the last election and only one MP.

    Like you we have a Government which got into power with less than 30% of the people (that’s all people not just the electorate) behind them. As always the biggest party, which will never get into power, is the ‘not in my name’ or ‘none of the above’ party aka those who didn’t vote or can’t vote for one reason or another.

    As for our MEPs in the European Parliament…..well that’s a different story which may not have a happy ending when Brexit occurs.

    1. Fiona, I have to respectfully disagree with you that my use of the term “monarchy parliamentary system” is misleading. First, we are not mix of British and American systems as you stated. Second, we do not have state legislatures. Our system is in fact exactly that, a monarchy parliamentary system where the true power resides not in the elected Prime Minister and Provincial Premiers but in a Governor General at the federal level and Lieutenant Governors at the provincial level which serve as represents of the Sovereign, which is Queen Elizabeth, otherwise known as the Monarchy. This makes it a Monarchy Parliamentary System. The legislatures, Prime Minister and Premiers, can pass the laws but the Governor General has to sign them in order for the laws to take effect.

      The opposite of this would be a Republic Parliamentary System which many nations have adopted. Under such a system the Governor General (Sovereign) role is replaced with an elected President. This is why you see some nations have both a President and a Prime Minister. If you do some further research on Parliamentary systems you’ll see that they are defined by Monarch and Republic systems. Australia is probably the one nation that has a system based on both the parliamentary model and the American model.

      Thanks for all your inputs. They are appreciated.

      1. Thank you for that information. My understanding of the Canadian system was clearly lacking.

        However, The Queen does not have Sovereign Power in this country. That has been held by our Parliament since the time of Oliver Cromwell. It may well appear to you and others that she appoints Governors within the Commonwealth but they all have to be approved by a committee subject to our Parliament. She doesn’t reign over us as in times past, regardless of the words of our national anthem.

        I would suggest that you may also need to consider that the British Parliament is actually acting as a regional administration for the EU. The Governors may therefore actually be EU bureaucrats even if they appear to have been appointed by the Queen and approved by our Parliament.

        The Queen cannot in truth ‘sign off’ on any of our laws, particularly as most of them are enacted on behalf of Brussels though again it may appear that she does. We do still have the formality but it cannot be enforced. She has no legal power to rescind anything she has ‘signed off’. That is because she is a European citizen now as we all are in this country.

        If you doubt that, it was recorded in Hansard which is the official record of the British Parliament. The question was asked and answered to that effect. The EU is a supra national power and can override anything in our country. Just one of the reasons we Brexiteers want to get out. We have a very hard road ahead.

        1. However.“? Why would I doubt that? I discussed Canada in my post and response, not Britain. Are you being argumentative just to be argumentative? Or am I missing something?

  4. WHY THIS MATTERS

    iStock_000021840548_Medium
    When government actors are allowed to decide which opinions can be expressed and which cannot, an open, vibrant and diverse society quickly breaks down. Similarly, when our court system is used to silence those with unpopular views or those who oppose powerful actors, we all lose the opportunity to hear all sides of an issue and come to our own conclusions. Freedom of expression is the right to speak, but also the right to hear. Informed political debate requires that this right be strongly protected, and it is only through free expression that individuals can take action to ensure that our governing institutions are held accountable. CCLA has been a steadfast defender of free expression since its creation in 1964 and continues to work to ensure that all individuals enjoy this basic right.
    Taken from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association Web site.
    The boy has signed away our sovereignty to the corporations with CITA and next will be freedom of speech.

    1. Hi Golden Instrument and Thank You for sharing Robert David Steele’s latest revelations.

      This guy has become like an adopted wise and old uncle for me as I admire his vast knowledge and intellectual thoughts and ideas. Steele, has many fascinating theories and most of them are absolutely transformative and very practical. His Open Source research and intelligence is actually being used by many thousands on topics such as Pedogates which assists in a swarm style in revealing a mystery.

      I have a feeling he is actually helping Trump Admin but he is pretending he is not! According to Steele, we should expect revelations regarding Alien technology and many other off world (and under earth cities!) stuff particularly regarding the $6 Trillion missing from the Pentagon at the Bush era! Should be very interesting.

  5. “Islamic Banking” is one of the most stunning deceptions of all times! The foundations of this diabolical scam is that charging interest on a loaned money is illegal or “Haram”. In fact the same system called Usury was fought against by Jesus against the money lenders of the era.

    Muslim “Scholars” have found a way around this is that they do not need call the interest, an “Interest” on the outstanding loan, but call it another less obvious name, namely “Admin Charges”! This is a tried and tested method of name changing technique to make something palatable to the gualible masses.

    What’s more intriguing is that the system is claimed to have been derived from “Sharia” when even the very concept is disputed by the many factions within Islam. What prevents Islam from a Reformation is exactly this point, that is, there is no central authority within Islam and it is not likely to ever come. Islam has been a reactionary or better said a revolutionary sect developed within the predominately Jewish tribes of Arabia and the levant, hence the extreme similarities between Judaism and Islam, with the exception that Judaism has formed as a distinct rule base system. Yet, history of both Judaism and Islam is mostly based on myths and much less on history and evidence!

    This entire bogus claim was created out of this air by Islamists and they insist it has been the tradition of the prophet of Islam!!!

    The Western Globalist/Marxist elite have encouraged and facilitated as a way to promote Islamism. The entire capital under this “Islamic Banking” amounts to 1 percent of the total world capital. Therefore the whole purpose is flawed and ridiculous from the start.

    I believe HSBC started this initially but as time passed, there has been less and less interest shown by the pious Muslims since they realize, their money in a non-Islamist system will yield more interest and they offer more flexible services.

    You can find the footsteps of the Fabian Socialists and their Islamist minions here, designed all so to promote the cause of political Islamism.

    IMF is ruled by the same Globalist elite still carrying on with their globalist agenda.

  6. Hello Dane, I am glad you found the Islam doc. of interest. I think hit the nail when you said: “…that’s the same thing that happened in the US.”.

    You are so right on saying that. The events of 911 and JFK is still disputed and that is now only 15-16 years ago, despite so many professional architects, civil engineers and other disciplines doubting the official narrative. So, it is absolutely and highly probable that stories of 1400 years ago are subject to even more investigation and assessment which may possibly turn the beleif system on its head.

    Apparently Gore Vidal used to say he is not a conspiracy theorist but a “Conspiracy Analyst” which any sane and rational person who seeks truth should be called!

Leave a Reply